Talk:Blogosphere

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

INCLUSIONISM! Lotsofissues 06:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neologism, solecism

  • I don't know about deletion, I hear this term quite a bit. The article could use some going-over, though; a lot of this probably belongs in the main weblog entry. At least the history of the term is useful information. --Pollen 10:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

VfD Archived debate[edit]

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 29 to May 6 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

The article strikes me as gibberish (mythology?), and wikipedia is not a dictionary or a glossary of slang anyway. Non-notable. Delete. Falcon 01:43, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Pretty sure I've heard this term before, and blogs are a very important cultural phenomenon circa 2004. Everyking 02:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not gibberish, it's just not very well written. The blogosphere refers to the interconnected world of weblogs - it's both a real phenomenon and a commonly-used term. Weblog says a bit about the types of blogs, but it doesn't really discuss the culture and interaction between blogs, nor should it — there's already plenty to cover there. There's definitely room for a good article on the blogosphere, this just isn't it yet. I improved a bit, but more work is needed. Isomorphic 02:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've never really heard of "warblogs" and "techblogs" or whatever, but blogosphere itself is certainly a word, and an encyclopedic concept at that. Meelar 02:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Warblog is definitely a common term (I know it despite not being a blogger,) and I think technoblog is too. Isomorphic 03:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a real term, and fairly common among the more voiciferous bloggers. -Sean 02:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a real, emergent phenomenon. Interconnectedness, you know? DS 03:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is quite out of date though, maybe I'll do something about that.--Samuel J. Howard 12:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This become a standard word faster than "e-mail" did. Alcarillo 20:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Decumanus | Talk 04:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Partial merge (of whatever is verifiable) with Weblog and redirect. anthony (see warning)
  • Keep - its good information.

The problem is not the term but the article itself. It's factually incorrect. See this paper http://www.blogninja.com/hicss05.blogconv.pdf

End discussion


Image[edit]

File:Sphere.gif

I've removed the image on the right from the main page, in it's current state it's just confusing. If it's relevant to the article, please put it back while specifying what it's suppose to represent, labeling the axes, etc. --fvw* 01:02, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

I went back and forth on inclusion. I think not having it at this time is probably better. Stirling Newberry 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Like any other biological system, the blogosphere demonstrates all the classic ecological patterns: predators and prey, evolution and emergence, natural selection and adaptation. The number of links obtained by a blog, is frequently related to the quality and quantity of information presented by that blog. That means, the most popular blogs have the highest link level, the worst blogs have the lowest link level. The blog ecosystem has its own selection and adaptation mechanism. The good tends to become better, the bad tends to disappear."

This is opinion, not fact.

provide evidence, then make solid, correct changes in the wikipedia tradition or go away. --Buridan 02:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


so the 'wikipedia tradition' is snyde, self-important hostility? Get a grip.

Vote for Deletion[edit]

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Reversion...[edit]

I recently added a small amount of text describing the popular backlash against the word blogosphere, corroborated even by the paragraph pertaining to Maddox in this very same article. Ipsenaut 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry about that. that must have slipped in while i was traveling. it fails the neutrality test, and is opinion/humor, personal reference. it has been removed also Buridan---

This article is about a fast changing phenomena. That becomes more known and close to readers. If you keep this page frozen, it wil become more outdated every day.

A new, or updated article should be written At least, put a date on this piece of hisotry.

Henk Daalder, contributor to the dutch version of Wikipedia

outdated perhaps, false or non-neutral... no. however, there has been a ton of changes over the last year.--Buridan 11:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I deleted a link to a very poorly written rant titled "Article on whether the blogosphere is overrated". The author is probably right about the blogosphere being overrated but it is rubbish. If you want to check and possibly reinstate it click here: http://www.slimindustries.com/blogorated/

- Jez

links[edit]

the links that exist on this page are the links that we've left exist on the page, we have culled many links and these exist by the consensus of the people that work on this concept. If you want them included differently, then write it up. don't cut them because you have a 'visions' of how you think a wikipedia article should be. --Buridan 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to convert them to an internal section, but half of them are redlinks. I also ran seraches to see if any of them existed under other names without success. Are those that are red important enough for their own articles, or only minor players? I'll leave off making the change for the moment, but this is what I attempted:

Important Blogosphere sites[edit]


I had it in the article preview as a level 2 section, but I've demoted it to level three to maintain sectioning in talk. Creating articles for those that are important enough and trimming out those that are not would make the article better and improve the projects coverage. --GraemeL (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not every link in wikipedia needs to be an internal link either, it is fine having these as external links. there is no reason not to do so. I do agree though that the ones with internal pages can be linked internally. --Buridan 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll remove all of those sites from external links and create the section with a mixture of blue links and external links. --GraemeL (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Pooja bhalchandra desai (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking[edit]

The tracking section seemed to be an odd place for a definition of what blogs are, as well as a place to talk about Forbes' coverage of marketing via blogs. I condenses the section to talk about tracking of conversations/memes, and aids for scholars who want to research flow of conversation. If we want a larger discussion of how the blogosphere might also be a "sphere" for marketing, such language needs to be re-worked. --mtz206 16:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 20 edit[edit]

I removed this phrase: "A network of blogs, then, becomes a living, constantly evolving and updating network of knowledge." This seems like puffery, and not very encyclopedic. There is nothing inherently "living" or "evolving" about the blogosphere. It is a network of dynamically-linked sites, not some mystical organ of knowledge. --mtz206 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portmanteau?[edit]

This was in Category:Computing portmanteaus, but I'm pretty sure "blogosphere" doesn't qualify as a portmanteau. It's just "blog" with a suffix on it. ~ Booya Bazooka 08:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

Changed "in order to" to just "to." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikkiking (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Overhaul[edit]

As part of a project for our Online Communities class at Cornell University, we (Communication seniors) would like to expand the article “Blogosphere,” detailing the history and proliferation of this community. The current Wikipedia article only contains a very brief history, and a small paragraph on tracking. We would like to expand on this history, including the basic origins of the blog (with link to the article of “blogs”) and the divergence between the individual blog and the network of blogs that developed. We will add a section detailing the “explosion” of the blogosphere (i.e. the period from 2003 to 2006, when the number of blogs had doubled every six months). In the next section, we will discuss how blogs have become interconnected through links between blogs and how these networks became a source of information (whether credible or not) on various subjects (from politics and fashion to sports and cooking). We will examine in greater depth the relationship of the blogosphere to media outlets, such as newspapers, magazines, and broadcast news. Finally, we will provide a list, with links, of prominent bloggers, blogs and blogging niches, as well as a discussion on how blogs can be differentiated from other online communities. We have been collecting a wealth of scholarly research and are really excited about this endeavor. Please let us know what you think. - Jlg5390 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have begun our preliminary edits. We added a Profileration heading, which will detail the "explosion of the blogosphere." Additionally, we have also added the Blogosphere as a Social Network heading, which we explain the interconnections that allow the blogosphere to be considered an online community. Finally, we have added a Blogging Niches heading, that will briefly explain, with appropriate links, different sub-communities within the blogosphere that are divided by genre.
- Jlg5390 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward seeing the improvements your group contributes. The summary of the proposed changes sounds thrilling. Even though your labors are at the service of you Online Communities course and I respect the possible prohibitions that may be placed on your receiving external assistance, I gladly volunteer any help I may offer - possibly some help with formatting, reactions, cleaning up texts, having an extra eye to sift through primary sources ... you name it.
- J.C. Martinez-Sifre (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observations[edit]

I think this is a very interesting article and immediately am thrilled to be one of the observers for the 'blogosphere.' The first paragraph is great in presenting a simple, yet full explanation about what the term actually means. I am a little concerned that there is no references or citations here as it does not seem like this definition is common knowledge. There history section is well put together. The neat citations really gives much legitimacy to the information. I assume this is still a work in progress (?) and so far I think you guys are off to a really nice start.

Dwc86 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has a lot of potential, so it should be good to work on. One of the first things I notice is that there is no 'sidebar' with an overall summary of what Blogosphere is. There is some commentary in the talk page about why the image has been deleted, etc., but I think it would be awesome if you were able to build this sidebar and make it a success. I think it makes the page look more official overall. Let me know if you want any help with this feature. I also think there is great potential in the blogging niches portion - as that list is almost endless. MikelG2012 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observing[edit]

This article looks great so far, and it's impressive that you didn't get deleted right away, especially since this is an article that is attached within wikigroups to a larger collection of articles maintained by more dedicated editors. The thing that I liked most about the article were all of the different links to terms like "community" that you used without defining, so that if readers don't understand what is meant by these terms there is an easy and highly visible way to check it out. This comes back in the later section of Niche Blogging, which allows readers to immediately see examples of the types of niche blogs you discuss. I'm wondering if it might be beneficial to have an explanatory sentence or two about what exactly a niche blog is before giving examples of them. I'd also of course like to see more examples of niche blogging, but I think that you will be expanding this anyway in the future as the article develops. Good work!

stc62 (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work so far! I agree with the person above who mentions that the blogging niche portion is seemingly endless. There are gaming blogs, scholarly blogs, news blogs, academic blogs, etc. Additionally it might be useful to look at this blog news website. Maybe you can find some cool stories, or maybe more examples of different kinds of blogs (especially more recent ones). Amonina (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blogosphere graph 1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Blogosphere graph 1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Health blog[edit]

After much deliberation, I am adding Health blog under the Blogging niches. I have noted that there are most other major genres of blogs but health. Blogging niches are as many as interests are and thus the need to include health blogs to the list. ApparentLifestyler. (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blogosphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blogosphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blogosphere&oldid=1205522949"